AsRockAint it funny, that the world don't evolve around you.

Yeah, it doesn't, that's why I got tired of endlessly waiting for their stupid graphic cards and bought the GTX. Like so many other people who did the same after waiting for almost one year just to get bunch of stupid rebrands with new gen cards nowhere to be seen. I'd call that VERY poor business execution on the AMD part and something that has nothing to do with world revolving around me... But hey, enjoy your waiting...

arbiterCan't pull 190watts from PCI-e

75 through the PCI-e, and 100 through the 8 pin connector, leaves plenty of headroom for more power.

Fury X isn't clipped, Fury is, supposedly Nano isn't. So if Nano is an underclocked Fury X and Fury X draws 250w versus Nano's 175w and we assume power scales linearly with clockspeed, crunch a few numbers and Nano comes to 735 MHz of Fury X's 1050 MHz...a 30% reduction. Can get numbers to compare here. AMD would use a best-case-scenario for comparing to older models which likely means 4K and we have to exclude Project Cars because that's an anomaly so Fury X is 21% faster than 390X and 29% faster than 290X. 29% is damn close to 30% and a far cry from 21%. I think it's pretty safe to assume it will land between 290X and 390X. You'd need a Fury to best the 390X.

If the Nano's average power draw is closer to 190w (calculated previously based on Fury X numbers), that goes in favor of Nano in terms of performance but still not enough to beat 390X.

Assuming all of the above is accurate, that should mean Nano will be priced similar to 390X or a bit under ($400ish USD).

For the green team, that puts Nano at about GTX 980 at 4K and about GTX 970 at FHD...not bad for a six inch card.

Caring175 through the PCI-e, and 100 through the 8 pin connector, leaves plenty of headroom for more power.

its 150 for 8pin.

Yeah, assume AMD's 175w figure is just an average when gaming. Nano can draw a total of 225w compared to Fury/Fury X at 375w.

arbiterits 150 for 8pin.

I was assuming 175w average, not what the 8 pin is capable of.

Seems, it is almost half in the size than my MSI R9 270X 2 GB.... :-D let's see what it have in performance.....compared to other biggies around.

SNMSeems, it is almost half in the size than my MSI R9 270X 2 GB.... :-D let's see what it have in performance.....compared to other biggies around.

I think really the bigger question isn't performance more as to temps it will run and if that little cooler on it can do the job.

Found some more pictures here, interesting details on the back.
www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=892&pgno=2

i want, i want i want
i hope the price aint gonna hang me dry

arbiterCan't pull 190watts from PCI-e

Sure you can... it is just out of spec. 150W is the SPEC for an 8 pin from PCIe SIG.

Think about it... how do LN2 people get away with bios and voltage mods that go well past 375W (2 8pin + PCIe slot)?

I really strongly feel that this product will fall between a 380 and 390, if Fiji is really just based off Tonga, wouldn't it make sense to see a 380-like card in Fury (HBM) form?

RejZoRYeah, it doesn't, that's why I got tired of endlessly waiting for their stupid graphic cards and bought the GTX. Like so many other people who did the same after waiting for almost one year just to get bunch of stupid rebrands with new gen cards nowhere to be seen. I'd call that VERY poor business execution on the AMD part and something that has nothing to do with world revolving around me... But hey, enjoy your waiting...

I am not waiting, 28nm is dead to me has been for a few years now then there is the point were the 290X still doing what i need of it.

AquinusI really strongly feel that this product will fall between a 380 and 390, if Fiji is really just based off Tonga, wouldn't it make sense to see a 380-like card in Fury (HBM) form?

I think it will almost exactly match 390 in performance but it will be a bit more in terms of price.

RejZoRYeah, it doesn't, that's why I got tired of endlessly waiting for their stupid graphic cards and bought the GTX. Like so many other people who did the same after waiting for almost one year just to get bunch of stupid rebrands with new gen cards nowhere to be seen. I'd call that VERY poor business execution on the AMD part and something that has nothing to do with world revolving around me... But hey, enjoy your waiting...

Same here, I was on board for a Fury or Fury x. Ended up with a 980.

EarthDogCome on newtekie... I was talking underlying architecture bub! Clockspeeds and the amount of ram do not make it a different card! It's the same thing under the hood! ;)

And remember there were plenty of highly overclocked 290x cards out there that go toe to toe with the 390x.

They do make a difference in performance, which is what we are talking about here.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure AMD would have said it outperforms a 390x if it actually did. The fact that they said it outperforms a 290x and not a 390x gives us a great hint that the Nano will fall between the 290x and 390x in performance.

Better than 290X in that form factor would be amazing. Here's hoping it's potential is realized.

They PERFORM different, sure. But its the same damn card with different clocks and memory. I didn't take your opposition to my "exact same card" statement to mean performance or that performance/clockspeeds suddenly changes its name... Akin to a Mustang, Mustang GT, Cobra, SHelby, Boss... they are all still mustangs right? Just difference performance. ;)
(ok, piss poor example on the cards considering the engine is different, LOL, but I think you got my point)

newtekie1Like I said, I'm pretty sure AMD would have said it outperforms a 390x if it actually did. The fact that they said it outperforms a 290x and not a 390x gives us a great hint that the Nano will fall between the 290x and 390x in performance.

Agreed.

EarthDog(ok, piss poor example on the cards considering the engine is different, LOL, but I think you got my point)

Actually, not really that bad of a comparison. With the exception of the base Mustang and possibly some of the higher higher Shelbies, like the 500, they all used the same 4.6L engine. They just had some slightly different components akin to clocks and memory. With the newer model Mustangs, there was the inclusion of the 5.0L but it shares many of the same components as teh 4.6L engine.

But, in many instances there is not much separating the 290X and 390X. So unless the Nano can come in priced less than the 390X it is going to be a hard sell. I originally believed that Nano to be coming in at around $450US. That can't happen for this card to sell.

EarthDogThey PERFORM different, sure. But its the same damn card with different clocks and memory. I didn't take your opposition to my "exact same card" statement to mean performance or that performance/clockspeeds suddenly changes its name... Akin to a Mustang, Mustang GT, Cobra, SHelby, Boss... they are all still mustangs right? Just difference performance. ;)
(ok, piss poor example on the cards considering the engine is different, LOL, but I think you got my point)

Your answer to the question "will it outperform a 390x" was "yes, because it is the same card as the 290x". That is an incorrect answer. They might be the same card, but they perform differently, the 390x is over 10% faster than the 290x. The question asked was about performance, simply answering "they are the same card" is wrong.

SlizzoBetter than 290X in that form factor would be amazing. Here's hoping it's potential is realized.

Yeah, nVidia did it almost a year ago and I didn't see much fanfare about it back than...

newtekie1Yeah, nVidia did it almost a year ago and I didn't see much fanfare about it back than...

Well that was the vendors like Asus and Gigabyte and not NVidia. Its a reference card coming in that small which makes it appealing to some.

arbiterI think really the bigger question isn't performance more as to temps it will run and if that little cooler on it can do the job.

Dude enough with the temp argument, I highly doubt they would put that cooler on the card if it could not handle it (INB4 we reference 290X, the cooler could handle it just was not as appealing as some liked). When the card comes out we can all see how the temps are and make judgments there.

Holy splitting fookn hairs..... its the same card with a speed increase... I didn't call a factory overclocked 290x a 290.5x did I? It still beats one of those right (Yes)? So yeah, it beats a 290x IN ANY FORM I would imagine.

Come on new........ shake it off! LOL :)

EDIT: After shaking it off myself, LOL, I need to make a correction. I think the Nano will (barely) beat a 390x. For some reason, I forgot about FuryX/Fury. I think the Nano will beat a 'reference' 390X, but still be short of the Fury.

The reason why they didn't say it would beat a 390x is because they are afraid to mention the "R" word (rebrand) and marketing. Otherwise, you have seen the reviews, there isn't a difference outside of those clockspeed increases which amount to a few % increase. I would be shocked if the Nano manages to slide in the tiny gap between the 390x and 290x. i dont think it will beat it by much, particularly at 1920x1080 (will be better at 2560x1440) and lower simply because of how the HBM architecture is scaling down compared to other non HBM/Fiji cards.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

At the same clock speed, 290x and 390x are almost on par.
www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1434612549l1GBQzJE5q_9_3.gif

Wait...so because a 390x and 290x are not the same cards because one is 10% faster, that means:

• an overclocked 390x really is a 490x because it is about 10% faster
• an overclocked 290x is really a 390x because they have about the same performance
• an overclocked 290x 8GB cards is ???

OMG I am so confused now....

My point exactly Carl. Hence why I feel the Nano, if they said it would beat a 290x, will also beat a 390x or at worst, tie it since they are factory overclocked. It all depends on what they based 'significant' performance increase off of when AMD said that... so who knows.

But since there is a pretty beefy gap (2560x1440) between the 290x/390x and FuryX, that is where I see it ending up. There is a 21% gap between the 290x and Fury and a 13% gap between the 390x and Fury... Right THERE is where it fits in. :)
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

moproblems99Wait...so because a 390x and 290x are not the same cards because one is 10% faster, that means:

• an overclocked 390x really is a 490x because it is about 10% faster
• an overclocked 290x is really a 390x because they have about the same performance
• an overclocked 290x 8GB cards is ???

OMG I am so confused now....

LOLOLOLOL!